User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: One on One: Stripe & genuineoriginal - The Hydroplate Theory

  1. #1
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795

    One on One: Stripe & genuineoriginal - The Hydroplate Theory

    The Grandstands thread - where anyone can air their views on this topic.

    In this thread:
    Stripe is willing to present and defend Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory as the most complete set of ideas defending a global flood model that explains the evidence we see.

    This is not expected to be a debate so much as an investigation and explanation of the core ideas, but hopefully some disagreements do foster some new thinking on the subject.

    My first post will be in a few hours and will present a broad explanation of the theory and the best evidence to support it.
    Last edited by Stripe; May 16th, 2012 at 09:03 AM.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  3. #2
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,971
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 551 Times in 413 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    461293
    Thank you for inviting me to this investigation into the Hydroplate Theory. I have a few ideas of my own on the condition of the earth at the time of the flood and the century afterward, and it will be interesting to see how well they mesh up with Dr. Brown's theory.

    From what I have seen so far, the Hydroplate Theory might not hold water (pun intended).
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  4. #3
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Thank you for inviting me to this investigation into the Hydroplate Theory. I have a few ideas of my own on the condition of the earth at the time of the flood and the century afterward, and it will be interesting to see how well they mesh up with Dr. Brown's theory. From what I have seen so far, the Hydroplate Theory might not hold water (pun intended).
    Great!

    Let's get it on!

    First things first - the Hydroplate Theory tries to hold true to what is laid out in the bible's creation account. So we can start in Genesis 1:

    The History of Creation
    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

    9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

    What we see from this is that the Earth was created submerged in water. Then a firmament was created within that water. This is described with analogy to an orange. If you imagine the meat of the orange as the bulk of the Earth and the skin as the firmament (or Earth's crust) then you will have oceans both above the "skin" and below the "skin".

    It's likely something changed at the fall to see this initial setup closed off somehow. That led to the buildup of pressure in the oceans below the "orange skin" crust of the Earth. The pressure led to a breach in the crust which sparked the flood:

    Genesis 7
    10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

    17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

    So the assumptions for the Hydroplate Theory are pretty simple:

    Assumption: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against the chamber’s floor. These extensive, solid contacts will be called pillars. The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least 3/4 mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.

    Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were generally in the positions shown ... but were joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean. On the preflood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.




    With the rupture, one very vital aspect of the Earth changed significantly. That being it's sphericity. The Earth's sphericity is controlled by its gravity, as is the sphericity of all objects with enough mass to them. If something changes the shape of one of these objects, gravity will then work to make it spherical again.

    When the "fountains of the great deep were broken up", this removed significant amounts of the Earth's created crust from what is now the Atlantic basin. What we see today is a great, water-covered hole in the Earth. Gravity then worked to fill in that hole to return the Earth to a more spherical shape. This reworking generated a bulge in the Atlantic. That bulge had to come from somewhere and it did. It came from below the Atlantic. Rock in the mantle below the Atlantic moved upward. Mass from the center of the Earth moved upward to fill that. Mass from the mantle below the Pacific (on the other side of the Earth) moved down to replace the mass lost at the center. And the Pacific subsided to replace the mass lost from below it.

    The bulge on the Atlantic side created a ramp for the crust (the orange skin) to slide down. This slide was lubricated with escaping water from the "subterranean chambers". When the lubricant ran out and/or the sliding "hydroplate" met resistance, the plate buckled and folded to form mountain ranges.

    That's a brief overview of what the Hydroplate Theory is about. Here is a list of the most compelling lines of evidence for accepting its validity:

    Mid-Oceanic Ridge
    Earth’s Major Components
    Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
    Submarine Canyons
    Coal and Oil
    Ice Age
    Major Mountain Ranges
    Volcanoes and Lava
    Geothermal Heat
    Strata and Layered Fossils

    Limestone
    Metamorphic Rock
    Plateaus
    Salt Domes
    Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
    Comets
    Asteroids and Meteoroids




    I've bolded the evidences I like the best and removed a couple I don't think I can do justice to.

    Do you see any obvious probems with what I have outlined here?

    Would you like to talk about a couple of those lines of evidence?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  6. #4
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,971
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 551 Times in 413 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    461293
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Great!

    Let's get it on!
    Ha ha. I won't go easy on you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    First things first - the Hydroplate Theory tries to hold true to what is laid out in the bible's creation account. So we can start in Genesis 1:

    The History of Creation
    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

    9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

    What we see from this is that the Earth was created submerged in water. Then a firmament was created within that water. This is described with analogy to an orange. If you imagine the meat of the orange as the bulk of the Earth and the skin as the firmament (or Earth's crust) then you will have oceans both above the "skin" and below the "skin".
    It does not look like the Hydroplate Theory is off to a good start.

    Genesis 1:7-8 YLT
    7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
    8 And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.


    The "firmament" is the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ which is best translated as "expanse" and comes from the Hebrew root word רָקַע which means to beat out flat or spread out. This "expanse" between the waters is called 'Heaven' which comes from the Hebrew word שָׁמַיִם which means air, sky, or atmosphere, and comes from an unused root meaning lofty.

    So, the first problem with the Hydroplate Theory is that it mistranslates "firmament" as the crust of the earth in order to justify having water above and under the earth's crust.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    It's likely something changed at the fall to see this initial setup closed off somehow. That led to the buildup of pressure in the oceans below the "orange skin" crust of the Earth. The pressure led to a breach in the crust which sparked the flood:

    Genesis 7
    10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

    17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
    Since the "firmament" is not the crust of the earth, then the question comes on where the water comes from. Scripture says that it came from 40 days and 40 nights of rain as well as from the fountains of the deep. The atmosphere cannot hold enough water vapor for 40 days and 40 nights of rain without being so dense that it could not support air-breathing animals, so the water that fell down as rain was being constantly introduced into the atmosphere during the time of the rainfall.

    The other source of water is the "fountains of the great deep." "Fountain" is from the Hebrew word that is used for natural springs, wells, and other sources of water that comes from the earth, but in this phrase the fountain comes from the great "deep."
    The "deep" is a word that usually refers to the open ocean or deep water, as opposed to a sea. (Genesis 1:2)

    Psalm 104:5-6
    5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
    6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.


    From the account in Genesis, it appears that the water came mostly from the great ocean. The water rose above the mountains while also falling from the sky as rain. This does not match the Hydroplate Theory of pressure from an underground unseen ocean breaching the crust.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    So the assumptions for the Hydroplate Theory are pretty simple:

    Assumption: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against the chamber’s floor. These extensive, solid contacts will be called pillars. The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least 3/4 mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.

    Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were generally in the positions shown ... but were joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean. On the preflood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.


    That is a huge assumption.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    With the rupture, one very vital aspect of the Earth changed significantly. That being it's sphericity. The Earth's sphericity is controlled by its gravity, as is the sphericity of all objects with enough mass to them. If something changes the shape of one of these objects, gravity will then work to make it spherical again.

    When the "fountains of the great deep were broken up", this removed significant amounts of the Earth's created crust from what is now the Atlantic basin. What we see today is a great, water-covered hole in the Earth. Gravity then worked to fill in that hole to return the Earth to a more spherical shape. This reworking generated a bulge in the Atlantic. That bulge had to come from somewhere and it did. It came from below the Atlantic. Rock in the mantle below the Atlantic moved upward. Mass from the center of the Earth moved upward to fill that. Mass from the mantle below the Pacific (on the other side of the Earth) moved down to replace the mass lost at the center. And the Pacific subsided to replace the mass lost from below it.

    The bulge on the Atlantic side created a ramp for the crust (the orange skin) to slide down. This slide was lubricated with escaping water from the "subterranean chambers". When the lubricant ran out and/or the sliding "hydroplate" met resistance, the plate buckled and folded to form mountain ranges.

    That's a brief overview of what the Hydroplate Theory is about. Here is a list of the most compelling lines of evidence for accepting its validity:

    Mid-Oceanic Ridge
    Earth’s Major Components
    Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
    Submarine Canyons
    Coal and Oil
    Ice Age
    Major Mountain Ranges
    Volcanoes and Lava
    Geothermal Heat
    Strata and Layered Fossils

    Limestone
    Metamorphic Rock
    Plateaus
    Salt Domes
    Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
    Comets
    Asteroids and Meteoroids




    I've bolded the evidences I like the best and removed a couple I don't think I can do justice to.

    Do you see any obvious probems with what I have outlined here?

    Would you like to talk about a couple of those lines of evidence?
    I already mentioned the biggest problems with the theory, so why don't you start with one of the other major problems I can see, which is animal and human migration after the flood.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  7. #5
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Ha ha. I won't go easy on you.
    Business as usual then.

    It does not look like the Hydroplate Theory is off to a good start.

    Genesis 1:7-8 YLT7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8 And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.


    The "firmament" is the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ which is best translated as "expanse" and comes from the Hebrew root word רָקַע which means to beat out flat or spread out. This "expanse" between the waters is called 'Heaven' which comes from the Hebrew word שָׁמַיִם which means air, sky, or atmosphere, and comes from an unused root meaning lofty.
    Heaven can also mean "the abode of God".

    So, the first problem with the Hydroplate Theory is that it mistranslates "firmament" as the crust of the earth in order to justify having water above and under the earth's crust.
    How would a crust of the Earth, flat and stretched out within the ocean not fit the description you gave?

    And God calling the place He intended to spend His time with people "Heaven" doesn't seem out of place to me.

    Here is what Dr. Brown says about the "raqia".

    Since the "firmament" is not the crust of the earth, then the question comes on where the water comes from. Scripture says that it came from 40 days and 40 nights of rain as well as from the fountains of the deep. The atmosphere cannot hold enough water vapor for 40 days and 40 nights of rain without being so dense that it could not support air-breathing animals, so the water that fell down as rain was being constantly introduced into the atmosphere during the time of the rainfall.
    The fountains fed the rainfall. When the fountains ceased, so did the rain. That's how the chronology works at both ends:

    Genesis 7
    11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

    Genesis 8
    2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.

    The other source of water is the "fountains of the great deep." "Fountain" is from the Hebrew word that is used for natural springs, wells, and other sources of water that comes from the earth, but in this phrase the fountain comes from the great "deep." The "deep" is a word that usually refers to the open ocean or deep water, as opposed to a sea. (Genesis 1:2)

    Psalm 104:5-6
    5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.


    From the account in Genesis, it appears that the water came mostly from the great ocean. The water rose above the mountains while also falling from the sky as rain. This does not match the Hydroplate Theory of pressure from an underground unseen ocean breaching the crust.
    I don't see why not. The great ocean you refer to was the water divided by the firmament in Genesis 1:6.

    Genesis 1
    6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

    Where do you think the waters were that were divided?

    The Psalm is probably a double reference pointing both to Genesis 1 and to Genesis 9 (the promise of no repeat flood).
    Psalm 104
    5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
    So that it should not be moved forever,
    6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
    The waters stood above the mountains.
    7 At Your rebuke they fled;
    At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
    8 They went up over the mountains;
    They went down into the valleys,
    To the place which You founded for them.
    9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
    That they may not return to cover the earth.

    The early Earth was completely underwater before Day 3 when the land was gathered together (gravity at work again - see images below). Most of the Psalm points to this idea. Then verse 9 is clearly a reference to Genesis 9 and the promise of no repeat flood.




    Dry Land Appears. At the end of the first creation day, Day 1, water covered the entire earth. On Day 2, God made a “raqia” that sharply separated (“badal”) the liquid water (“mayim”) above from the liquid water below. On Day 3, land rose out of the surface water, in preparation for the creation of plants, animals, and humans. (Water thicknesses are exaggerated to illustrate events of Days 2 and 3. Dimensions are estimates.)

    Sequence is important. If the Sun and Moon, created on Day 4, had existed before pillars formed, the Sun’s and Moon’s powerful gravity would have greatly deformed the temporarily unstable crust. Pillars, the foundations of the earth, maintained stability.

    Recognizing that a large amount of water was under the preflood crust, as the Bible states, is essential to understanding the flood.



    That is a huge assumption.
    Yep. It'll need some pretty compelling evidence to win folk over.

    I already mentioned the biggest problems with the theory, so why don't you start with one of the other major problems I can see, which is animal and human migration after the flood.
    That will be best explained by looking at more broad geophysical processes driven by the Earth's sphericity changes.

    I'll post again shortly on that.
    Last edited by Stripe; May 15th, 2012 at 09:08 AM.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  9. #6
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    From the account in Genesis, it appears that the water came mostly from the great ocean. The water rose above the mountains while also falling from the sky as rain. This does not match the Hydroplate Theory of pressure from an underground unseen ocean breaching the crust.

    1. Large quantities of subterranean water existed in the ancient past.
    Psalm 24:2. ... He has founded it [the earth] upon the seas ...
    Psalm 33:7. ... He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses ... (A storehouse is a closed container that preserves something you may use later. God used that water when He brought it forth as a flood. Many storehouses, or interconnected chambers, held the subterranean water.)
    Psalm 104:3. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters ...7 [Pillars were formed.]
    Psalm 136:6. ... [He] spread out the earth above the waters ...
    II Peter 3:5. ... the earth was formed out of water and by water ...1
    2. These subterranean waters, under growing and very extreme pressure, burst forth bringing on the flood.
    Genesis 7:11–12. ... the fountains of the great deep burst open,8 and the floodgates9 of the sky were opened. And rain fell ...10
    Job 38:8–11. ... who enclosed the sea with doors, when bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment ...
    Psalm 18:15. ... the channels of water appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare ...
    Proverbs 3:20. ... the deeps were broken up and the skies dripped dew ...


    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  11. #7
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Post-Flood Animal and Human Migration.

    Relevant chapters from the online book:
    Recovery Phase. Where did the water go?
    How Was the Earth Divided in Peleg’s Day?
    Why Did the Flood Water Drain So Slowly?

    The explanation for how migration was possible post-flood is something I feel I understand well enough to believe viable, but it's rather difficult to explain. But I'll take a shot at it.

    First, we should establish in our minds the model of the Earth we are working with - the "orange and orange skin" hydroplate model had a rocky and cold interior covered in water. Within that water was created a firmament - a layer of globe encircling rock (akin to the skin of the orange). This layer buckled downward and upward on Day 3 to gather the seas into one place and to produce dry land. Gravity drove this process.

    Gravity also drove the post flood processes as the Earth prefers a more spherical shape and the flood explosion rendered the Earth significantly non-spherical. First, let's look a the interior of the Earth and consider its response to the flood.

    The fountains of the great deep probably saw their first rupture somewhere in the mid to south Atlantic Ocean. The fountains carried away large amounts of rock from that area creating a gravitational imbalance. The Earth was rendered significantly non-spherical. In response to this imbalance, mass began to move into the hole created. But mass did not move from the side of the hole to fall into it and fill it up, it moved upward from beneath the hole. The cold rocky mantle beneath what would become the Atlantic Basin rose. Then the cold core of the Earth rose to ensure no void was left above it. Then the cold mantle below what would become the Pacific Basin sank to ensure no void was left at the Earth's center. Finally the Pacific Basin subsided.

    make a gif. The Atlantic basin is on the right side. Pacific on Left.

    This process not only affected the Earth, but the Moon also. You can see the great big holes carved into the near side of the Moon (filled with maria - lava).

    And on the far side of the Moon, opposite the craters, a large depression (dark area near the south pole - the Aitken Basin).

    Colour coded topographical map.

    What this process created for the floodwaters was two great big depressions to flow into. When the fountains broke up the Earth became flooded completely. When the animated process above completed the waters drained from the Earth and Noah could leave the ark. For the next ~500 years the waters were all constrained largely to these two major basins. Thus if we go to Google Maps and look at ocean levels that are in light blue we can pretty much link up all of the land masses that needed repopulating.
    Light blue ocean area would have been dry land for ~500 years after the flood (in Peleg's day) till the land sank into the mantle.
    China to Taiwan.
    Asia to Australia.
    Australia to New Zealand.
    Russia to Alaska.
    Europe and the UK to the USA via Iceland/Greenland.
    Equador to the Galapogas Islands.

    The reason the water rose again is again because of gravity. The mountains and sediments deposited away from the ocean basins began sinking into the mantle (because the Earth prefers to be more spherical). So today we can see and feel the tail end of those forces reaching equilibrium.
    Last edited by Stripe; May 15th, 2012 at 11:07 AM.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  13. #8
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,971
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 551 Times in 413 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    461293
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Heaven can also mean "the abode of God".

    How would a crust of the Earth, flat and stretched out within the ocean not fit the description you gave?

    And God calling the place He intended to spend His time with people "Heaven" doesn't seem out of place to me.

    Here is what Dr. Brown says about the "raqia".
    Have another look at Genesis 1. See what kind of twisting needs to be done to make "firmament" and "heaven" mean the crust of the earth.

    Genesis 1:1
    1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



    Genesis 1:8
    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.



    Genesis 1:9
    9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.



    Genesis 1:14
    14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:



    Genesis 1:15
    15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.



    Genesis 1:17
    17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,



    Genesis 1:20
    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.



    Genesis 1:26
    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.



    Genesis 1:28
    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.



    Genesis 1:30
    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


    Dr. Brown is knowingly and deliberately making a semantic shift to justify his theory.
    The context of the verses show that the "firmament" and "heaven" refered to in the story is the expanse of the sky. Even in his explanation he can't get around that definition, so he starts begging for an exception when "firmament" and "heaven" are used in Genesis 1:8-9.

    Relying on an exception to the standard meanings of the words in Genesis 1 is not helping to establish the Hydroplate Theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    The fountains fed the rainfall. When the fountains ceased, so did the rain. That's how the chronology works at both ends:

    Genesis 7
    11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

    Genesis 8
    2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.

    I don't see why not. The great ocean you refer to was the water divided by the firmament in Genesis 1:6.

    Genesis 1
    6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

    Where do you think the waters were that were divided?
    An objective look at the Genesis account would answer that question by claiming that primitive tribes could see that the sky is blue like the ocean and water comes from the sky, so the account is merely an explanation that the blue in the sky is another ocean above the sky where rain comes from.

    God claims that He has treasures of snow and hail reserved, that an abundance of waters are in the clouds like bottles in the sky.

    Job 38:22-23,34,37
    22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
    23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
    34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
    37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,


    God says He can shut up heaven so there is no rain.

    2 Chronicles 7:13
    If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;


    Yet, while God usually provides colorful phrases to describe things, He sometimes provides scientific explanations.

    Job 36:27-28
    27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
    28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.



    That is all I have time for now. I will be back.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  14. #9
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Have another look at Genesis 1. See what kind of twisting needs to be done to make "firmament" and "heaven" mean the crust of the earth.
    Dr. Brown's explanation (in the context of challenging canopy theory).

    Genesis 1
    The History of Creation


    1 In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven (singular). So the evening and the morning were the second day.

    9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens (plural, distinct from the firmament called Heaven and probably including the newly made Heaven) be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

    14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens (a completely new phrasing, and a completely different firmament) to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

    There is more than one heaven in the bible (2 Corinthians 12:2), Heaven on Earth is a biblical term (Deuteronomy 11:21 - hat tip to chickenman) and, according to Dr. Brown's ideas, there is more than one firmament. I don't find the concepts too much of a stretch and they have the advantage of supporting some great lines of physical evidence.

    If we were allowed to reword Genesis 1 we might say:


    In the beginning God created the universe.
    The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    Then God said, “Let there be a crust in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters". Thus God made the crust, and divided the waters which were under the crust from the waters which were above the crust; and it was so. And God called the crust Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

    Then God said, “Let the waters under the sky and crust be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

    Then God said, “Let there be lights in the sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the sky to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the sky to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.



    The context of the verses show that the "firmament" and "heaven" refered to in the story is the expanse of the sky. Even in his explanation he can't get around that definition, so he starts begging for an exception when "firmament" and "heaven" are used in Genesis 1:8-9.
    The firmament created on day 2 was formed within and dividing water.

    Where do you think that water was?

    Relying on an exception to the standard meanings of the words in Genesis 1 is not helping to establish the Hydroplate Theory.
    Even if the hydroplate model is not explicitly supported by scripture, it is not undermined by it.

    An objective look at the Genesis account would answer that question by claiming that primitive tribes could see that the sky is blue like the ocean and water comes from the sky, so the account is merely an explanation that the blue in the sky is another ocean above the sky where rain comes from.
    So you do not believe the description is one of historical, physical reality?



    - - - - - - - - -
    The Grandstands thread - where anyone can air their views on this topic.
    Last edited by Stripe; May 16th, 2012 at 09:04 AM.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  16. #10
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,971
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 551 Times in 413 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    461293
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Genesis 1
    The History of Creation


    1 In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven (singular). So the evening and the morning were the second day.

    9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens (plural, distinct from the firmament called Heaven and probably including the newly made Heaven) be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

    14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens (a completely new phrasing, and a completely different firmament) to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

    Even if the hydroplate model is not explicitly supported by scripture, it is not undermined by it.
    It looks like we both agree that the translation used by Dr. Brown requires abandoning a plain reading of the Genesis account and subsituting in alternate definitions of the words for expanse and sky as needed to support the Hydroplate Theory.

    I tend to apply Occam's Razor to interpreting the Bible, and the simplest explanation is generally the best. I am not convinced that going to the lengths Dr. Brown did to redefine the terms used is doing any favors for the Hydroplate Theory, in fact it reminds me of this.

    Let's just agree to disagree on this point, and see whether there is any scientific justification for the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    The firmament created on day 2 was formed within and dividing water.

    Where do you think that water was?
    An objective look at the Genesis account would answer that question by claiming that primitive tribes could see that the sky is blue like the ocean and water comes from the sky, so the account is merely an explanation that the blue in the sky is another ocean above the sky where rain comes from.
    So you do not believe the description is one of historical, physical reality?
    No, I believe that God is able to provide an explanation that can satisfy a child questioning why the sky is blue as well as explaining what He did.

    God claims He separated the water above the expanse from the water below the expanse. Two interpretations of that statement led to the Canopy Theory and the Hydroplate Theory. I believe there is a simpler explanation.

    If there was a lot of water on the Earth and God separated the water with the sky, then there is water under the sky and water above the sky. Above the sky is the cold of outer space, which would freeze the water into ice. Scientific explorations of comets have discoverd that the composition of the water in them is similar to the composition of the water on earth, and have discovered regions of large chunks of ice surrounding the solar system (Kuiper belt and scattered disk) that are thought to be the source of the ice comets.

    This matches another of the accounts in the Bible

    Job 38:22-23
    22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
    23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  17. #11
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,971
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 551 Times in 413 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    461293
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Post-Flood Animal and Human Migration.

    Relevant chapters from the online book:
    Recovery Phase. Where did the water go?
    How Was the Earth Divided in Peleg’s Day?
    Why Did the Flood Water Drain So Slowly?

    The explanation for how migration was possible post-flood is something I feel I understand well enough to believe viable, but it's rather difficult to explain. But I'll take a shot at it.

    First, we should establish in our minds the model of the Earth we are working with - the "orange and orange skin" hydroplate model had a rocky and cold interior covered in water. Within that water was created a firmament - a layer of globe encircling rock (akin to the skin of the orange). This layer buckled downward and upward on Day 3 to gather the seas into one place and to produce dry land. Gravity drove this process.

    Gravity also drove the post flood processes as the Earth prefers a more spherical shape and the flood explosion rendered the Earth significantly non-spherical. First, let's look a the interior of the Earth and consider its response to the flood.

    The fountains of the great deep probably saw their first rupture somewhere in the mid to south Atlantic Ocean. The fountains carried away large amounts of rock from that area creating a gravitational imbalance. The Earth was rendered significantly non-spherical. In response to this imbalance, mass began to move into the hole created. But mass did not move from the side of the hole to fall into it and fill it up, it moved upward from beneath the hole. The cold rocky mantle beneath what would become the Atlantic Basin rose. Then the cold core of the Earth rose to ensure no void was left above it. Then the cold mantle below what would become the Pacific Basin sank to ensure no void was left at the Earth's center. Finally the Pacific Basin subsided.

    make a gif. The Atlantic basin is on the right side. Pacific on Left.

    This process not only affected the Earth, but the Moon also. You can see the great big holes carved into the near side of the Moon (filled with maria - lava).

    And on the far side of the Moon, opposite the craters, a large depression (dark area near the south pole - the Aitken Basin).

    Colour coded topographical map.

    What this process created for the floodwaters was two great big depressions to flow into. When the fountains broke up the Earth became flooded completely. When the animated process above completed the waters drained from the Earth and Noah could leave the ark. For the next ~500 years the waters were all constrained largely to these two major basins. Thus if we go to Google Maps and look at ocean levels that are in light blue we can pretty much link up all of the land masses that needed repopulating.
    Light blue ocean area would have been dry land for ~500 years after the flood (in Peleg's day) till the land sank into the mantle.
    China to Taiwan.
    Asia to Australia.
    Australia to New Zealand.
    Russia to Alaska.
    Europe and the UK to the USA via Iceland/Greenland.
    Equador to the Galapogas Islands.

    The reason the water rose again is again because of gravity. The mountains and sediments deposited away from the ocean basins began sinking into the mantle (because the Earth prefers to be more spherical). So today we can see and feel the tail end of those forces reaching equilibrium.
    I see some problems with this explanation as well.

    The initial assumption is that there was a lot more water under the earth's crust than above it, a crack formed that released superheated high pressure saltwater under the ocean, which blasted megatons of the earth's crust into outer space splattering the moon and creating meteors, asteroids, and comets. Somehow the high pressure water under the crust escaped in a controlled fashion that did not deflate the crust but instead took a strip out of the middle of the continent that was about a sixth of the continental mass (rough guess based on Dr. Brown's image) in what we now call the Atlantic Ocean. This extra water rained down on the earth and raised the ocean levels, but quickly formed into a large sheet of ice covering much of the northern and southern hemispheres. Some of the water returned into the still-intact subterranean caverns that initially held the superheated high pressure salt water, allowing the continents to remain above the water afterwards.

    I am not trying to create a strawman argument to tear down, but am trying to condense dozens of pages from Dr. Brown's book into a concise statement.

    I see a problem with the idea that tidal pumping increased the pressure on the water under the crust. The deformation of the crust during the tidal pumping would have created an equilibrium in the pressure as the crust was hammered thinner from the inside instead of increasing the pressure on the water. His explanation seems to be the opposite of what physics would suggest should happen. As I see it, anything that could cause the "pillars" of the earth to stretch as much as depicted would also be able to stretch the crust enough to relieve much of the pressure.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  18. #12
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    It looks like we both agree that the translation used by Dr. Brown requires abandoning a plain reading of the Genesis account and subsituting in alternate definitions of the words for expanse and sky as needed to support the Hydroplate Theory.
    No, we don't agree on that.

    I tend to apply Occam's Razor to interpreting the Bible, and the simplest explanation is generally the best. I am not convinced that going to the lengths Dr. Brown did to redefine the terms used is doing any favors for the Hydroplate Theory, in fact it reminds me of this.
    "Raqia" is not explicitly defined in scripture. Its translation into "firmament" is valid. We just need to understand what that term refers to. Same with "shamayim" into "heaven". That there are multiple heavens provides a little complexity. That there might be multiple firmaments should confuse things more, but to me the alternate translation I provided seems pretty clear and simple.

    And locking away half the ocean below the firmament provides a source for the fountains of the great deep.

    What water do you think sourced the fountains of the great deep?

    Let's just agree to disagree on this point, and see whether there is any scientific justification for the theory.
    I hope you'll come to see it my way.

    The lines of evidence I am eager to discuss are in my second post:


    Mid-Oceanic Ridge
    Earth’s Major Components
    Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
    Submarine Canyons
    Coal and Oil
    Ice Age
    Major Mountain Ranges
    Volcanoes and Lava
    Geothermal Heat
    Strata and Layered Fossils
    Limestone
    Metamorphic Rock
    Plateaus
    Salt Domes
    Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
    Comets
    Asteroids and Meteoroids



    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    The initial assumption is that there was a lot more water under the earth's crust than above it
    About equal.

    a crack formed that released superheated high pressure saltwater under the ocean, which blasted megatons of the earth's crust into outer space splattering the moon and creating meteors, asteroids, and comets.
    Yep.

    Somehow the high pressure water under the crust escaped in a controlled fashion that did not deflate the crust but instead took a strip out of the middle of the continent that was about a sixth of the continental mass (rough guess based on Dr. Brown's image) in what we now call the Atlantic Ocean.
    Like a balloon rupturing, the crack that formed split around the globe.

    Some of the water returned into the still-intact subterranean caverns that initially held the superheated high pressure salt water, allowing the continents to remain above the water afterwards.
    The continents only remain above water that did not escape. Water cannot work against the pressure gradient inside the Earth to penetrate very deep. We see water venting from the Earth through geothermal and volcanic activity. That water cannot be then replaced with more water (unless it was heated at a very shallow depth).

    I see a problem with the idea that tidal pumping increased the pressure on the water under the crust. The deformation of the crust during the tidal pumping would have created an equilibrium in the pressure as the crust was hammered thinner from the inside instead of increasing the pressure on the water. His explanation seems to be the opposite of what physics would expect to happen.
    It didn't increase the pressure directly. It increased the temperature.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  20. #13
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,971
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 551 Times in 413 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    461293
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    No, we don't agree on that.

    "Raqia" is not explicitly defined in scripture. Its translation into "firmament" is valid. We just need to understand what that term refers to. Same with "shamayim" into "heaven". That there are multiple heavens provides a little complexity. That there might be multiple firmaments should confuse things more, but to me the alternate translation I provided seems pretty clear and simple.
    To you it does, but I am never happy with any attempt at translating the Hebrew or Greek in the Bible where the translator takes the same word used in one passage and translates it in a vastly different manner in the following passage, which is what Dr. Brown is doing. A consistant translation has the birds flying in the middle of the crust of the earth or has the expanse as the sky. Since Hebrew words can often mean different things, the Hebrew phrases used are often redundant in order to reinforce the appropriate meaning to use. In the case of Genesis 1, the redundancy reinforces an interpretation of expanse and sky instead of selectively interpreting crust and God's abode.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    And locking away half the ocean below the firmament provides a source for the fountains of the great deep.

    What water do you think sourced the fountains of the great deep?
    I believe that the extra water came from the snow and hail that God has reserved for the day of battle and war (Job 38:22-23). The snow and hail are stored in comets. Here is an example, though the scientists quoted don't believe in a Young Earth.
    Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
    a newly discovered crater, 18 miles in diameter, lies 12,500 feet below the surface.
    The explanation is obvious to some scientists. A large asteroid or comet, the kind that could kill a quarter of the world’s population, smashed into the Indian Ocean 4,800 years ago, producing a tsunami at least 600 feet high, about 13 times as big as the one that inundated Indonesia nearly two years ago. The wave carried the huge deposits of sediment to land.
    ...
    Dr. Masse analyzed 175 flood myths from around the world, and tried to relate them to known and accurately dated natural events like solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions. Among other evidence, he said, 14 flood myths specifically mention a full solar eclipse, which could have been the one that occurred in May 2807 B.C.
    Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, Dr. Masse said. A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami.
    The ice comets would heat up as they entered the atmosphere, releasing water vapor into the sky that would push it past the precipitation point and cause it to rain, when the comet heads struck the oceans, they would cause massive explosions and vaporize, releasing even more water vapor into the sky and the explosions would cause tsunamis that would wash over the continent. The additional water that was added to the earth would cover the land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    The lines of evidence I am eager to discuss are in my second post:


    Mid-Oceanic Ridge
    Earth’s Major Components
    Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
    Submarine Canyons
    Coal and Oil
    Ice Age
    Major Mountain Ranges
    Volcanoes and Lava
    Geothermal Heat
    Strata and Layered Fossils
    Limestone
    Metamorphic Rock
    Plateaus
    Salt Domes
    Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
    Comets
    Asteroids and Meteoroids
    Which one or ones do you think are the most compelling lines of evidence and how would it be able to overcome my prior objections?
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  21. #14
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,367
    Thanks
    119
    Thanked 7,762 Times in 6,097 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147795
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    I believe that the extra water came from the snow and hail that God has reserved for the day of battle and war (Job 38:22-23). The snow and hail are stored in comets. Here is an example, though the scientists quoted don't believe in a Young Earth.
    Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
    a newly discovered crater, 18 miles in diameter, lies 12,500 feet below the surface.
    The explanation is obvious to some scientists. A large asteroid or comet, the kind that could kill a quarter of the world’s population, smashed into the Indian Ocean 4,800 years ago, producing a tsunami at least 600 feet high, about 13 times as big as the one that inundated Indonesia nearly two years ago. The wave carried the huge deposits of sediment to land.
    ...
    Dr. Masse analyzed 175 flood myths from around the world, and tried to relate them to known and accurately dated natural events like solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions. Among other evidence, he said, 14 flood myths specifically mention a full solar eclipse, which could have been the one that occurred in May 2807 B.C.
    Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, Dr. Masse said. A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami.
    The ice comets would heat up as they entered the atmosphere, releasing water vapor into the sky that would push it past the precipitation point and cause it to rain, when the comet heads struck the oceans, they would cause massive explosions and vaporize, releasing even more water vapor into the sky and the explosions would cause tsunamis that would wash over the continent. The additional water that was added to the earth would cover the land.
    That's a lot of comets in order to cover even the smallest of hills and to flood the Earth for a year...

    And even a 200m tsunami woul not encroach significantly upon the continents. In order to flood the planet, you need to dramatically alter its sphericity.

    And the biggest challenge to your comet idea...

    Where did the water go?

    And do you really think comets are the best explanation for a great set of fountains?

    Which one or ones do you think are the most compelling lines of evidence and how would it be able to overcome my prior objections?
    I bolded the ones I'm most keen on in my second post:
    Mid-Oceanic Ridge, Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Lava, Geothermal Heat, Strata and Layered Fossils, Comets, Asteroids and Meteoroids.

    But feel free to pick from any geophysical aspect of the Earth.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Captain (July 11th, 2016),Tambora (June 15th, 2016)

  23. #15
    Over 6000 post club genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    6,971
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 551 Times in 413 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    461293
    Here is what others think of the idea of the flood being caused by a comet:
    Was Noah’s Flood a tsunami caused by a comet impact?

    Rather than confirming the historicity of Noah’s Flood, ‘Noah’s comet’ contradicts the biblical data, at best explains only a local flood and overlooks the clear geological evidence for the truly global Flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    I bolded the ones I'm most keen on in my second post:
    Mid-Oceanic Ridge, Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Lava, Geothermal Heat, Strata and Layered Fossils, Comets, Asteroids and Meteoroids.

    But feel free to pick from any geophysical aspect of the Earth.
    Start with the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Dr. Brown's demonstration on that made me laugh.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us